Thinking Iran — It’s the Regime, Not the Nukes

My friend Michael Ledeen is right, of course, that the “October Surprise” trial balloon floated by the Times over the weekend — the suggestion of a “grand deal” between Obama and the mullahs over Iran’s nuclear program — is much ado about nothing new.

What would be new is to try the only approach to Iran that has ever made any sense — the one no American administration, of either party, has tried. Very simply: the Iranian regime is our enemy; we want the mullahs gone, by whatever means gets the job done within the constraints of political reality.

As I have maintained for a very long time, the obsession over Iran’s nukes is a grave mistake. It implies that if we could come to some understanding about the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions, the groundwork would be laid for stable relations. This is delusional. Exportation of their Islamist revolution, hatred of America and, within that sweep, the destruction of Israel have been the operating premises of Khomeinist Iran since 1979. The facilitation of terrorism — a barbaric way to pursue national interests — has been the regime’s principal means of operation. The mullahs have killed or aided and abetted in the killing of thousands of Americans, and every day they try to kill more. The regime is an incorrigible enemy of the United States. There should be nothing they can do at this point, after over 30 years of this, to convince us otherwise.

The potential that Iran could get nuclear weapons adds urgency to the problem, but it is not the problem per se. The Pakistanis have nukes — we’re not thrilled about that, but it does not keep us up at night. The problem posed by Iran is the regime, not the nukes.

Our policy in Iran should be regime change, period. That is, we are never going to be satisfied with any result in Iran except the eradication of the regime, and we are going to use every single lever of American power, hard and soft, to achieve that result — in a manner that promotes the stability of a post-regime Iran and respects political reality in the U.S. By promoting stability in Iran, I mean that we would like to see Iranians overthrow their deeply unpopular government, we should make no secret about assisting that effort, we would prefer not to invade Iran militarily, but we make no commitments that we will not invade — we are going to stop our long policy of doing nothing when Iran kills Americans and takes other hostile steps. By respecting political reality in the U.S., I mean that there is a dearth of popular support at this time for war against Iran — the political case for it has not been made; and it makes neither strategic nor financial sense to move our forces into Iran and repeat the democracy project. (I’m not nearly as convinced as many of my friends are that the Iranian people are pro-American — there are lots of Leftists and non-regime Islamists in Iran. But I am convinced that a post-mullah regime would not make hostility to the U.S. its animating premise. That would make it a drastic improvement — for us and for global stability.)

The point is to say, openly and notoriously: They are our enemy and there is nothing they could do to change our minds about that. If they give us reasons to attack militarily, we will. Meantime, we are doing everything in our power — diplomatically, economically, legally, and by intelligence ops — to squeeze and undermine the regime while empowering Iranians who oppose the regime. And we want other countries in the world to know that the United States wants the Iranian regime gone: We will consider friendliness toward Iran to be unfriendliness toward the United States, and deal with it accordingly.

When we make our policy around Iranian nukes, we are on the defensive — and it is as if we are overlooking their unbroken 30-year history as a state sponsor of anti-American terrorism. If we make regime change our policy, to be pursued by every conceivable means with no assurances to Iran that any form of military, diplomatic or economic action is off the table, then we are on offense, and the regime’s enemies know they have a very powerful ally in their corner.

Click here to view the 32 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

32 Comments, 24 Threads

1.
rbj

Yes. An attack on Iran’s nuke facilities is meaningless if it only sets the program back a couple of years. Cut off the head of that snake.

There is no reason why a twofer shouldn’t be the goal.But first things first, and the immediate danger are the nukes.

While of course nukes in Pakistan are dangerous, especially due to proliferation, but nukes in the hands of Arabs/Muslims, in the most volatile region in the world, is a clear and present danger.

On the other hand, regime change is an urgent priority, and something which should have been a high priority for years, even before the Islamist-in-Chief took the helm. But the fact of the matter is, ‘The One’ abandoned the Iranian’s hopes for regime change, back in 2009. It is through his malfeasance that a window into his plans for the region are revealed. Barack HUSSEIN Obama wants Iran to have nukes.

The question becomes – what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Well, living in the eye of the storm, this blogger wants their genocidal program destroyed/set back forthwith, and it can be done – with or without Washington – but the Islamist-in-Chief must get the hell out of the way.

Mr. McCarthy: I recall you writing about the First Amendment rights being trashed by the arrest of the filmmaker. I was surprised to read in the Washington Times that “Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the 55-year-old filmmaker responsible for the anti-Muslim video” has been in jail for almost a month and will not be back in court until after the election. “PICKET: Anti-Muslim filmmaker detained for almost a month…next court date three days after election”

I don’t imagine this has quelled the cries from the Obama administration’s Islamic Advisers to deport him to Egypt. Mind you, I would imagine they will be able to have the Interpol extradition request complied with before January 20, 2013.

Islamic fundamentalism is our enemy. Why is Iran so important when we have Pakistan, a supposed ally, which had nukes and hid Bin Laden from us? They hide and supply the Taliban. We bomb the heck out of them with drones. Basically we’re at war with an “ally”.

Saudi Arabia pays for this ideology to be spread around the world. Sure, different flavor, but both Iran and the Saudis want the world under Shariah law.

Let us say truth: eradication of the Iranian regime and promoting stability in apost-regime Iran mean, in simplest words, restoration of the old colonial system. Do the American people really want that?

Yes you are right. The obvious way out of that dilemma is to have only three goals – (1) eradication of the regime and (2) getting rid of the Nuclear weapons & (3) missile programs. We should not be responsible for anything else in a post regime Iran. Their political future is their responsibility. We do not have to change the constitution or any junior personnel or arrange elections etc. That is their responsibility and in Iraq we took on too much. We just have to let them know “We’ll be back if you get it wrong again.”

I think that this should be our primary response in these situations. If after 5 or 10 years they seem to have things right, then perhaps we could invest a little money to help them. Our current policy looks like we are just giving our paycheck over to a drunken uncle.

The easiest solution is for the West to drop a small nuke on Mecca and another on Medina to express allah’s displeasure. After some tantrums, the headless mohammadans would begin their long trip to catch up with the modern, civilized world.

I agree with the author, Andrew McCarthy. We will be bothered by Iran until Iran is not a bother. Just bombing centrifuges, hidden deep in mountains won’t make the threat go away. It is a start and progress, but not a solution. So they scrape up the remains of their program and make a suitcase bomb. Or they bow to international pressure and open up and show everyone that they have decided to pursue nuclear energy and not weapons. And make a suitcase bomb. A small amount of non-weaponized uranium placed on some plastic explosives can render a dozen city blocks uninhabitable. You don’t actually need a traditional nuke to cause a lot of problems. It is safer to see that people who want such things don’t have access to such things. I’m not unconvinced that Iran’s current government wouldn’t try a national suicide bomb. Pakistan stays in line because they know India or Israel will destroy them if they use their bombs. I’m sot so sure Acmedinnerjob wouldn’t think trading bombs is a bad idea.

It’s about nukes too. Ever since we beat the crap out of Sadam in Gulf 1, and the Chinese watched in real time as the US pulverized the weaponry China had just bought from Russia, the Chinese have been busy spreading nuke technology throughout America’s mideast enemies. None of those Muslim primatives in the region are safe to possess nukes. None.

I’ve spent years of my life advocating the.same,the only realistic solution for Iran is secular Democratic regime change, I grew up in Iran and know how westernized the Iranian people are in their private lives, but forced to follow the oppressive and backward Islamic codes in their public lives. With regime change all.of Iran’s nuke and terror threats will be eliminated.

Well, no, because replacing one mohammadan ruler with another mohammadan ruler will NOT change their political ideology. Remember, it is the DUTY of all mohammadans to kill or convert us infidels. Believe amadinnutjob when he said he didn’t care if Iran became a sheet of radioactive glass. The mohammadans have NO loyalty to ANY country. Nukes ARE a problem, since they can be so easily bought or stolen from Pakistan or Russia.

This is the brightest comment I have heard in regards to the Iranians. Mr. McCarthy has hit the nail on the head. Let the mullahs understand that we will will not go away. Hurt them politically, economically, and militarily if necessary. Aid the dissidents in any way possible. They are a Muslim country and that won’t change, but a regime that is friendly to the west, and doesn’t think that the USA in “the great Satan”, is certainly an improvement.

Sep 26, 2007 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meets leaders of Neturei Karta International an anti-Zionist Jewish group on Monday, September 24, 2007, at the start of a visit to New York for the U.N. General Assembly meeting.

Let’s deal with the realities in the Middle East. Mr. McCarthy chooses not to. He wants regime change. That would be not even come close to solving the problem. It is puffery. We have a better chance of overthrowing Venezuela’s Mr. Chavez — slim and none, and slim just left town.

Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? To give pride to its people and to give credence to its international strategy which touches the hearts and minds of all Persians — the recreation in the 21st Century of the Persian empire of Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes. The remainder of the Muslim countries are governed more or less by Sunnis — more or less radical than the Iranians. In each of the Sunni nations is a large population of Shi’ites — underclass and doing the scut work, They form a leveraging minority, which if actively incited by nuclear armed co-religionists just next door or down the street, could cause great trouble for the rulers..

Certain forces bar the way to a Greater Persian Empire. The first is the Jewish State of Isreal. The second is he Sunni Islamist State of Turkey. Iraq is already within the fold. Syria was the next step, to be followed by the subjugation of Lebanon by Hezbollah. Iran has already invested the IRGC “trainers of Hezbollah” in southern Lebanon with missions in Syria.

Two forces have likely interfered with this plan – -Saudi Arabia, with its wealth, and Turkey. There are within Saudi Arabia the ruling Saud family and the separate radical Sunni Salafists. The latter, through al Qaeda, sees opportunity in Syria and has organized its paramilitary groups. The former, who still support the Sunni Sheiks in Iraq, have the resources to purchase weapons for the uprisers. .

I am surprised that the Saudis and Israel do not have common ground here. Perhaps, below the surface, they are negotiating.

There are some dissidents in Iran who would like regime change. I have postulated that we are not through with the traditional phases of Revolution (C. Brinton “The Anatomy of Revolution.”) It will, however come within one of the power groups rather than from the Green people. Could the Middle East peacefully exist without the Iranian Supreme Leaders in charge? Will the successor of Ayatollah Khamenei enjoy the fealty of the increasingly powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps? The last is hugely invested in the Iranian economy as well as controlling, in effect, Foreign Relations,and the security forces..

Would the United States want to negotiate with this group? I see nobody else on the horizon capable of overthrowing the Mercedes Mullahs

As a post note, this reach for nuclear weapons belies the need for nuclear fuel for their national power system.

The mullahs would be displeased to hear you invoke the Persia of Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes. The late Shah tried that and thousands paid for it with their lives. Loyalty to pre-Islamic Persian culture is the mullahs’ bete noir. They want the bomb for Shia Islam, not for Persia. For the Mahdi.

Don’t you guys ever read history? Regime change is NOT our business. Consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, Chile, and the list goes on and on and on and….. we supporteed our puppet “leaders” in all of those nations. Some threw them off because of their tyranny, most only to be replaced by worse rulers. (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan). Sure, the people were ‘happy” for a season, but ONLY because the known tyrant was gone. Once they awakened to the reality of living under the new one, no real progress, and in many cases, serious regression.

Someone please read our Constitution again, and tell me where I missed the charge to our Federal Government to manage, meddle, direct, foreign governments. Very sortly after he ascneded to the throne, our current moslem in chief attempted to meddle in a “situation” in Honduras, wherein the then-sitting president was impeached and unseated by the duly elected Congress of that nation for violaing clearly written Honduran law regarding power he was usurping illegally. The two remaining branches of their republican form of government followed the proceedures written in their own Consaitutioin to the letter in all proceedings. Our resident kinyun threatened to intervene if they did not return the law-breaking ex-president to office. Thankfully, Honduras stood firm, and the kinyun got distracted. THAT little temper tentrum by our bloviator in chief revealed how he would conduct business in future, and subsequent years have proven him trustorthy to do just that. WHY does he insist on meddling in the internal affairs of other nations? He has NO AUTHORITY to do that.

Now, standing firm to defend allies is right… such as Israel. However, his actions and words belie any intent to truly do so.

WHO governs Iran is NOT our business. Particularly when one considers the massive amounts of MY tax dollars we’ve “invested” in installing and propping up the current scoundrels.. a nearly untarnished track record of empowering and supporting tyrants worldwide. We make the imperialistic Brits pale in comparison. But guess what? Again, regarding history, what was it that broke the back of the Kingdom upon which the sun never sets? It was managing, maneoubring, manipluating, “governing”, meddling in every corner of the planet…… more than the half of Africa, much of the present Middle East, CHina, India, Pakistan, Abyssinia, Egypt, Morrocco, Libya, Nicaragua, Guiana, Honduras, Kenya, and I’l leave the rest off. This massive burden, self-assumed, broke their back financially, militarily, politically. We are following in their footsteps, and will surely suffer the same fate.

Find and read George Washington’s Farewell Address, upon his passing his authority as our First President on to the one assuming his office. He directly addresses precisely this scenario, and warns straitly that we mustn’t follow that path. It is morally, politically, financially, militarily, and legally inappropriate. I weary of our substance as a nationn being wrongly coerced out of our possession and worse than wasted by throwing it to these various hopelessly corrupt nations that spend it to continually abuse their own populations. This is particularly gallling when I consider the damage, now near irreparable, done to our own economy….. the means of production is being wasted on foolery. Regime change here at home is a far more worthy cause, and by that I do NOT mean suybstituting the R&R team for the O&B team. They are near identical, and nothing significant will change with the new “offering” by the ruling elites.

The following is from a person from US Naval Intelligence. He believe in the just inevitability of the Persian bomb. He also doesn’t say anything about the cost to the neighbors.

The regime is not the issue, but rather what they say they are going to do. I think we can trust them on that. It really is our business and Tionico whatever it may be should know that.

Of course, if what he says is true and that is for you to decide of course, it then suggest the the Iranians are completely on board with the program so have no complaint about possible outcomes to the policy.

I seem to remember that aspirations change with governments. Certainly the Germans were on board for Hitler, but with him gone, the direction of the state changed.

This quality of thought is why I left the Navy: I was finally shamed by association with such people arrogantly holding such truth.

“Why does Iran want nuclear weapons? To give pride to its people and to give credence to its international strategy which touches the hearts and minds of all Persians — the recreation in the 21st Century of the Persian empire of Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes. The remainder of the Muslim countries are governed more or less by Sunnis — more or less radical than the Iranians. In each of the Sunni nations is a large population of Shi’ites — underclass and doing the scut work, They form a leveraging minority, which if actively incited by nuclear armed co-religionists just next door or down the street, could cause great trouble for the rulers..”

Iran calls Israel the little satan, and the U.S. the great satan. So after they’re done dispatching with Israel, they’ll finish us off next. And they think they’re ushering the the 12th Imam. Religious zealots with nukes can’t be reasoned with; period. They have been war with us for since Jimmah Carter, but we stubbonly refuse to beleive it. So it best to take them serious because they’re deadly serious. And they’ve infiltrated the U.S. government. You should be worried; very worried.

As an aside, Iran is pretty much classic “1984″ by Orwell. The tenuous hold the mullahs hold over the ruling class is due to calling the US an enemy. The greater the enemy, the greater the hold. This is not to say that Iran is not dangerous, it most assuredly is. The bravado of weaklings has many times been prelude to actual war.

Indeed, McCarthy is quite right about regime change being paramount. These guys have a messianic vision that supercedes any sensibilities, wherein lies the gravest danger. They are religious fanatics who truly believe they are doing divine work, who see an atomic conflagration as a ticket to astral glory.

Sensible discussion means nothing because they see such as a smokescreen that buys time for nefarious development. Let’s hope they have a nuclear accident on their own turf that will prevent a real disaster. Of course, a properly placed earthquake would accomplish the same thing.

Really? A grave mistake? Ahmadinejad is an amoral grub with apocalyptic, end-of-times fantasies about the return of the Mahdi. He’s nuts. he dreams of turning Israel into toast.

Mr McCarthy, if I could be sure that the mullahs would recoil in horror at the thought of nuclear terrorism – a missle into Israel or slipping a nuke to a friend or proxy for use in New York or London; or at least, if I could be sure that they would be sufficiently afraid of the consequences, then I could agree with you that it is a “grave mistake” to focus on Iran’s nukes.

But it seems to me to be just the sort of thing they would do, if they thought they could get away with it. Slip a nuke to some proxy, or even to the hated Sunnis; after all, Osama bin Laden said it was “a religious duty” for Muslims to acquire nukes for use against the west.

As for the consequences, Ahamadinejad is so barmy, so attached to millennial fantasies, that he might not care about the consequences. Am I wrong in fearing this scenario from a nuclear armed Iran? If not, then it seems to me that the destruction of their nuclear program is indeed the most pressing problem, and it is a continuing one. There’s no point in a regime change when Iran still has nukes — probably under worse regulation than they would be with the present regime.

.. as any schoolchild knows, the Islamic Republic of Iran is the main bulwark against Saudi Wahhabist dominance of the Arab and/or Islamic world. What the media fails to inform you is the fact there are practicing Christians and Jews in Persia: try that in Saudi Arabia, our famous “ally” and the primary incubator for terror under the Islamic banner (not that Wahhabism is properly Islamic: it is a 250 year old cult. imagine if David Koresh had billions at his disposal and was making bid to control global Christianity). In any case, the .. obsession with Iran is as irrational as the longstanding Cuba one and – with a small number of Washington Think-tankers – is fueled by incomprehensible hate.